Jump to content
Awful horrible bad shit is happening in the USA right now, if you are afraid of your fucking feelings getting hurt this isn't the website for you. ×
Patrick Bateman

2020 Presidential Election -- Biden v Trump: Sleepy Joe vs Dopey Don

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Agree of they remain the white nationalist party. Assuming they pivot post-Trump, and white moderates go home, I don't think so.

2020s have dems caught between a rock and a hard place. Losing grasp on WI, Michigan following behind it, but not close enough to anything in the sunbelt to replace them on a regular basis. Have to really fight and claw for PA and they'll lose that if they don't hold suburban moderates. Though I will say that AZ has really accelerated this cycle to the point where it could be a light blue tint way faster than anyone thought. A sudden and wholesale change like CO or VA looks like it may be happening there.

We're in the midst of the GOP's battle of the bulge. If/when NC, GA, and especially TX (the latter being the one I actually think most likely to flip on a permanent basis because you don't need suburban gen xers, millenials/gen z and latino voters will do it) flip it's over for them nationally except fighting for the Senate. But until then they're actually in a better default position than the democrats, assuming white moderates migrate back to GOP after Trump.

All of this assumes Biden wins of course. If Trump wins nothing matters.

a latino driven flip is slower because they aren't all that much of a monolith and the voting participation rates are so low.  they were 52D-43R in the governor's race we just had, for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
100%.
that said, it's a census year, so shouldn't there be some shuffling with reps and electoral votes (moving forward, obviously, starting in 22/24)?  i'm not completely familiar with that process but i would assume someone can fill us in.  i'm assuming it becomes slightly more representative with each passing year, but i know the small, rural states will always be a problem.
Kind of along the lines of the D predicament I mentioned. FL and TX will pick up five-ish EVs while CA, IL, NY, MN, MI, and PA (the last two probably still slight D leans into the 2020s despite 2016) will also likely lose an EV there are some other +/- 1 shifts that make it something resembling a wash (depends on how you treat some states like NC or AZ) but really the FL/TX pickup is big for the GOP. They benefit slightly from the 2020 census, most likely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
a latino driven flip is slower because they aren't all that much of a monolith and the voting participation rates are so low.  they were 52D-43R in the governor's race we just had, for instance.
Yeah, that's kind of my point. It's still going a while for TX. TX latinos are not as overwhelmingly democratic as, say, California latinos. But I do think a hypothetical flip here is likely to be more permanent than one in NC or GA because it isn't as dependant on suburban white moderates in the long term. I expect the GOP to fight very dirty here over the coming decade to try to stem that.

Even if Democrats are only +10 or 15 among latinos, as they continue to constitute more of the population and the electorate, that becomes harder and harder for the GOP to overcome. I wouldn't use Abbott as a barometer for GOP performance at the presidential either - he's as much of an outlier as Beto when it comes to partisan vote margin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, gmr548 said:

Link? Because that's true in SECSECSEC and we all know why, but white voters don't seem to behave that way in other diverse states - CA, NY, IL, etc. on down the line. We've seen college educated whites move away from Trump to the point that the wedge between educated and non-educated wrecks any white bloc behavior, at least outside SECSECSEC (and even some examples in it - GA and TX).

That problem with educated voters doesn't bode well for the GOP in MN. And that's just one of their issues there - it just isn't very structurally friendly for them. They're better off trying to push Florida down the Ohio path.

Sure, Trump is a complete wreck with educated whites.  The GOP has no way forward as a national party, in any way, shape or form, if they can't either get that back, or flip minority voters.  The damage to the brand from going with Trump is very very large right now.  How long will that last? I don't know.  But, if they are going to have any chance of winning at all they have to go back to dominating suburban college educated white's. Can they?  I don't know.  But if they are going to win that's the path, and that makes a place like MN winnable with the right candidate far enough down the road for the Trump stink to wear off.  Is that there for 2 cycles?  A generation? I don't honestly know.  

I did a quick google and couldn't find anything expressly speaking about this (I have seen it though- linked on TOS) but if you plot percentage of whites as electorate, and plot percentage of white's voting a certain way they move opposite directions (especially when accounting for strength of candidate/party- 84 and 88 were just shellackings), which is a back of the envelope way of saying the egg heads data and science strikes me as likely to be correct.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2016/02/05/130647/what-about-white-voters/

Yes, they do need to push Florida down the Ohio path.  But that doesn't do anything for them in and of itself.  They also need to push WI down the IA path (and maybe IA is an outlier in 2016- but I sort of think IA is what Missouri was in the 1990's and 2000's- a place that the Dems can win if the right candidate comes along but that has a GOP slant). This showed up when Missouri went GOP even in 2008 and 2012 with the dems winning, and a GOP senator winning in 2018 in a trouncing.  

Texas is obviously the biggest prize (and Florida is almost as important for the Dems) b/c either of those flip and it's just about impossible to see the GOP winning.

I actually don't think Florida is going to be a GOP state in the future. It's been razor thin for so long, and they just restored voting rights down there (similarly to VA a few cycles back) and I just don't see any way that doesn't tilt a state that had been so close to level the way of the Dems.

The 2016 election will be viewed as a combination of an incredibly disliked candidate from the dems and a backlash against minorities (my goodness that feels so disgusting to type- FUCK YOU TRUMP WITH A BARBED WIRE DILDO FOR THAT), but going forward I think the GOP only wins by aligning the religious conservatives with the rural, with the college educated. That's a hard balance to do. W did it and he won in 2000 an election he had no real business winning based upon any kind of fundamentals- it was just personal likeability.  Candidates do matter somewhat, sometimes.   If you can do that, you might be able to drive the percentage of white vote up to 65% or so and peel off just enough minorities to be able to get over the line.  But, you are talking about threading a very very small needle.

Everyone is riled up about Trump b/c he sucks, sure, but it's going to be over very very soon and the Dems will control the nation in the white house for a long time.  There are still enough small states where if the GOP finds the right balance they can control the house, and enough purplish congressional districts that if the dems go too far there will be push back, but man, it's going to be hard work to see any chance at the white house for the foreseeable future. 

Y'all need to chill a little bit.  Your nightmare will be over, soon.  Again, I'd like to thank the POC for making sure we don't have Bernie as a president and hope that Biden restores some respect to the process and has a boring ass 4 years, prioritizing keeping us out of a great depression over spending bills that are lists of one parties priorities. 

I was actually more heartened by the first couple bills that came out of the 'Rona epidemic.  If we could have that kind of divided government that fucks around and does almost nothing unless it's super important, and then moves together to get a rational bill done that doesn't do anything but what can be agreed to by a broad coalition of people I think that's probably about why the founders set up the government the way that they did.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gmr548 said:

Agree of they remain the white nationalist party. Assuming they pivot post-Trump, and white moderates go home, I don't think so.

2020s have dems caught between a rock and a hard place. Losing grasp on WI, Michigan following behind it, but not close enough to anything in the sunbelt to replace them on a regular basis. Have to really fight and claw for PA and they'll lose that if they don't hold suburban moderates. Though I will say that AZ has really accelerated this cycle to the point where it could be a light blue tint way faster than anyone thought. A sudden and wholesale change like CO or VA looks like it may be happening there.

We're in the midst of the GOP's battle of the bulge. If/when NC, GA, and especially TX (the latter being the one I actually think most likely to flip on a permanent basis because you don't need suburban gen xers, millenials/gen z and latino voters will do it) flip it's over for them nationally except fighting for the Senate. But until then they're actually in a better default position than the democrats, assuming white moderates migrate back to GOP after Trump.

All of this assumes Biden wins of course. If Trump wins nothing matters.

Yeah, I think you and I are sort of in agreement, if the GOP can drive white moderates home post trump. I don't see that happening prior to 2 or 3 more cycles though, as that stench man, it's going to last for a long time.  And AZ is blue and blue forever more. Color it in in crayon now and forever more. 

Texas might not flip as quickly as you think. There are a lot of lazy GOP, and our hispanic population isn't near as liberal as the hispanic population in CA, AZ, NV etc.  

Get ready for George P Bush to be a thing, I would think.  And my guess is he can probably kill it here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Yeah, I think you and I are sort of in agreement, if the GOP can drive white moderates home post trump. I don't see that happening prior to 2 or 3 more cycles though, as that stench man, it's going to last for a long time.  And AZ is blue and blue forever more. Color it in in crayon now and forever more. 

Texas might not flip as quickly as you think. There are a lot of lazy GOP, and our hispanic population isn't near as liberal as the hispanic population in CA, AZ, NV etc.  

Get ready for George P Bush to be a thing, I would think.  And my guess is he can probably kill it here. 

I don't think it's even within the realm of possible for statewide Democrats for another decade. It could theoretically be sooner if there's a Trump 2 but who fucking cares at that point.

I don't think anything is changing any time soon, I just think the foundation is there for it to be a lot more of a solid Democratic state than other potential SEC flips. Structurally, Texas resembles California way more than it does NC or Georgia.The latino population here doesn't need to be as liberal as it is in AZ or NV (I'm aware of the difference between TX and CA latino voters, honestly no idea on AZ or NV), because unlike those two states, there's a black population in line with the national average; there are also a shitload of millennial/gen Z, which are, without hyperbole, a lost generation for the GOP. Especially in Texas, where whites are a definite minority in that group. I think there's also the case to be made that the latino community here is just under-engaged relative to CA, and that if they voted at the same rates, the margin would be a lot more similar. But that's a different conversation.

Democrats should be investing in the ground game here to chip away at it over the next few cycles, then start going for the killshot in the late 2020s. GOP will fight and cheat like its their Alamo, no pun intended, because it is. But if you're Democrats, it's priceless. And note that I am not at all confident the Democratic party will actually pull this off. They've been boogalooing TX for a generation, why stop now?

1 hour ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Sure, Trump is a complete wreck with educated whites.  The GOP has no way forward as a national party, in any way, shape or form, if they can't either get that back, or flip minority voters.  The damage to the brand from going with Trump is very very large right now.  How long will that last? I don't know.  But, if they are going to have any chance of winning at all they have to go back to dominating suburban college educated white's. Can they?  I don't know.  But if they are going to win that's the path, and that makes a place like MN winnable with the right candidate far enough down the road for the Trump stink to wear off.  Is that there for 2 cycles?  A generation? I don't honestly know.  

I did a quick google and couldn't find anything expressly speaking about this (I have seen it though- linked on TOS) but if you plot percentage of whites as electorate, and plot percentage of white's voting a certain way they move opposite directions (especially when accounting for strength of candidate/party- 84 and 88 were just shellackings), which is a back of the envelope way of saying the egg heads data and science strikes me as likely to be correct.

https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/news/2016/02/05/130647/what-about-white-voters/

Yes, they do need to push Florida down the Ohio path.  But that doesn't do anything for them in and of itself.  They also need to push WI down the IA path (and maybe IA is an outlier in 2016- but I sort of think IA is what Missouri was in the 1990's and 2000's- a place that the Dems can win if the right candidate comes along but that has a GOP slant). This showed up when Missouri went GOP even in 2008 and 2012 with the dems winning, and a GOP senator winning in 2018 in a trouncing.  

Texas is obviously the biggest prize (and Florida is almost as important for the Dems) b/c either of those flip and it's just about impossible to see the GOP winning.

I actually don't think Florida is going to be a GOP state in the future. It's been razor thin for so long, and they just restored voting rights down there (similarly to VA a few cycles back) and I just don't see any way that doesn't tilt a state that had been so close to level the way of the Dems.

The 2016 election will be viewed as a combination of an incredibly disliked candidate from the dems and a backlash against minorities (my goodness that feels so disgusting to type- FUCK YOU TRUMP WITH A BARBED WIRE DILDO FOR THAT), but going forward I think the GOP only wins by aligning the religious conservatives with the rural, with the college educated. That's a hard balance to do. W did it and he won in 2000 an election he had no real business winning based upon any kind of fundamentals- it was just personal likeability.  Candidates do matter somewhat, sometimes.   If you can do that, you might be able to drive the percentage of white vote up to 65% or so and peel off just enough minorities to be able to get over the line.  But, you are talking about threading a very very small needle.

Everyone is riled up about Trump b/c he sucks, sure, but it's going to be over very very soon and the Dems will control the nation in the white house for a long time.  There are still enough small states where if the GOP finds the right balance they can control the house, and enough purplish congressional districts that if the dems go too far there will be push back, but man, it's going to be hard work to see any chance at the white house for the foreseeable future. 

Y'all need to chill a little bit.  Your nightmare will be over, soon.  Again, I'd like to thank the POC for making sure we don't have Bernie as a president and hope that Biden restores some respect to the process and has a boring ass 4 years, prioritizing keeping us out of a great depression over spending bills that are lists of one parties priorities. 

I was actually more heartened by the first couple bills that came out of the 'Rona epidemic.  If we could have that kind of divided government that fucks around and does almost nothing unless it's super important, and then moves together to get a rational bill done that doesn't do anything but what can be agreed to by a broad coalition of people I think that's probably about why the founders set up the government the way that they did.  

I'm quoting your posts in reverse order, sorry for that, it's the order I saw them in.

I'm of the opinion that we'll see educated whites actually go back to the GOP pretty quickly as long they do a good job on projecting the image that Trump has been powerwashed from the party. Yeah, white moderates don't care for the on the nose racism, but you know what suburban whites really hate? Spending money on poor people and minorities. The current GOP platform isn't all that different from the one that bloc consistently rubber stamped for the GOP to the point that they structured entire gerrymanders around it. I think they're going to go home once Trump is gone and the GOP starts howling about fiscal responsibility (lol), because Democrats are going to take control of the government and want to spend money on social programs.

That's why I think the GOP actually still has an EC advantage in the 2020s. Essentially, I think the rust belt starts leaning Republican before the Democrats find a place that can reliably compensate for that. Any number of things could change that - namely them doubling down on Trumpism and keeping moderates in the Democratic court, Democrats being competent enough to run strong enough candidates and/or successfully engage enough low-participation voters to overperform in swing states ala Obama (lol again). And of course, the nation still indisputably leans Democratic. Just because the EC gives the GOP a better chance that a straight popular vote (basically zero chance) would, doesn't mean their chances are particularly strong. But dead at the presidential level is a stretch until (if) TX flips.

I actually think Democrats are going to sit on the House for a while. The GOP appears to think this too based on their actions. That's the branch of government where their overall nationwide advantage means the most. The gerrymanders of the 2020s will not be as GOP friendly as the gerrymanders of the 2010s. Democrats still cluster geographically so the GOP chances will still be disproportionately high there, but Democrats pretty much have baked in generic ballot lead of a few percentage points just based on pure national partisanship. Ease the gerrymander penalty and it becomes pretty hard for the GOP to win it back, certainly for any meaningful period of time.

 

 

 

 

Edited by gmr548

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

I don't think it's even within the realm of possible for statewide Democrats for another decade. It could theoretically be sooner if there's a Trump 2 but who fucking cares at that point.

I don't think anything is changing any time soon, I just think the foundation is there for it to be a lot more of a solid Democratic state than other potential SEC flips. Structurally, Texas resembles California way more than it does NC or Georgia.The latino population here doesn't need to be as liberal as it is in AZ or NV (I'm aware of the difference between TX and CA latino voters, honestly no idea on AZ or NV), because unlike those two states, there's a black population in line with the national average; there are also a shitload of millennial/gen Z, which are, without hyperbole, a lost generation for the GOP. Especially in Texas, where whites are a definite minority in that group. I think there's also the case to be made that the latino community here is just under-engaged relative to CA, and that if they voted at the same rates, the margin would be a lot more similar. But that's a different conversation.

Democrats should be investing in the ground game here to chip away at it over the next few cycles, then start going for the killshot in the late 2020s. GOP will fight and cheat like its their Alamo, no pun intended, because it is. But if you're Democrats, it's priceless. And note that I am not at all confident the Democratic party will actually pull this off. They've been boogalooing TX for a generation, why stop now?

I'm quoting your posts in reverse order, sorry for that, it's the order I saw them in.

I'm of the opinion that we'll see educated whites actually go back to the GOP pretty quickly as long they do a good job on projecting the image that Trump has been powerwashed from the party. Yeah, white moderates don't care for the on the nose racism, but you know what suburban whites really hate? Spending money on poor people and minorities. The current GOP platform isn't all that different from the one that bloc consistently rubber stamped for the GOP to the point that they structured entire gerrymanders around it. I think they're going to go home once Trump is gone and the GOP starts howling about fiscal responsibility (lol), because Democrats are going to take control of the government and want to spend money on social programs.

That's why I think the GOP actually still has an EC advantage in the 2020s. Essentially, I think the rust belt starts leaning Republican before the Democrats find a place that can reliably compensate for that. Any number of things could change that - namely them doubling down on Trumpism and keeping moderates in the Democratic court, Democrats being competent enough to run strong enough candidates and/or successfully engage enough low-participation voters to overperform in swing states ala Obama (lol again). And of course, the nation still indisputably leans Democratic. Just because the EC gives the GOP a better chance that a straight popular vote (basically zero chance) would, doesn't mean their chances are particularly strong. But dead at the presidential level is a stretch until (if) TX flips.

I actually think Democrats are going to sit on the House for a while. The GOP appears to think this too based on their actions. That's the branch of government where their overall nationwide advantage means the most. The gerrymanders of the 2020s will not be as GOP friendly as the gerrymanders of the 2010s. Democrats still cluster geographically so the GOP chances will still be disproportionately high there, but Democrats pretty much have baked in generic ballot lead of a few percentage points just based on pure national partisanship. Ease the gerrymander penalty and it becomes pretty hard for the GOP to win it back, certainly for any meaningful period of time.

 

 

 

 

Agree on the house. The 2010 tea party wave was a wet dream for republicans and they gerrymandered the fuck out of that map. They are bound to take a step back in the next redistributing cycle. It couldn’t possibly go any better for them then 2010.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

I don't think it's even within the realm of possible for statewide Democrats for another decade. It could theoretically be sooner if there's a Trump 2 but who fucking cares at that point.

Forgive me for shortening your post, but I just want to highlight one point on which I really disagree.

Texas has never been a two-party state.  Going back to the time of annexation, this has been a one-party state.  And certainly in the modern era, it's a one-party state.

Now, for a lot of that time, there have been two wings within that one party vying for supremacy.  In the 50's and 60's it was the liberal Yarborough wing of the Democratic Party against the conservative Connelly wing.  In the 90's and 00's, it was the business-friendly Bush win against the cultural-conservative Patrick/Paxton wing of the Republican Party.

But there's only ever one party.

And there's good reason for that.  For all of the talk about how business-friendly Texas is, much of the Texas economy runs on very highly regulated industries (e.g., oil & gas).  And it's much easier for those businesses' lobbyists to only have to work one party.  And that's what they do.  They're not Republicans because they're ideological.  They're Republicans because that's who holds power.

But everybody knows what's coming.  The lobbyists certainly do.  That's why they're now at least talking to Democrats.  And as soon as one Democrat wins in a statewide race--and it could happen this year in some downballot race--fucking look out.  Texas Association of Business, Texas Oil & Gas Association, and all the rest will start giving to Democrats.  And once that happens, it's all over.  Money's important in politics.  Votes follow the money.  And with all that money that'll flow into Democratic coffers, this thing'll flip in a hurry.

It took really just about 8 years for this state to flip from Democratic to Republican (i.e., 1978, when Bill Clements was first elected, to 1986, when Clements was elected again).*  It won't even take that long this go-around.  

 

 

* I don't think Ann Richards counts, because she only got elected because her opponent made a rape joke (how quaint that making a joke about rape was seen as disqualifying).  But you could arguably push that date of the final defeat of the Texas Democratic Party back to the mid-90's, when it lost SCOTX.

2 hours ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Sure, Trump is a complete wreck with educated whites.  The GOP has no way forward as a national party, in any way, shape or form, if they can't either get that back, or flip minority voters.  The damage to the brand from going with Trump is very very large right now.  How long will that last? I don't know.  But, if they are going to have any chance of winning at all they have to go back to dominating suburban college educated white's. Can they?  I don't know.  But if they are going to win that's the path, and that makes a place like MN winnable with the right candidate far enough down the road for the Trump stink to wear off.  Is that there for 2 cycles?  A generation? I don't honestly know. 

How're they going to do that, exactly?  It's not like Trump goes away.  He's the leader of a cult of personality, and he'll still have access to his twitter machine.

This is going to be the Party of Trump until Trump dies (and probably long afterwards).  

After Hoover, the GOP was in the wilderness for 20 years (and they needed a war hero from the greatest cataclysm in world history to pull them back into power).  Now imagine Hoover had a twitter machine.  And was a fucking narcissistic lunatic.  How long would the GOP have been out of power then?

Let's be real realistic about the GOP's future prospects: it has none.  It's the Whig Party.

 

 

Getting back to the topic of the thread: You know why I'm really sanguine about all these polls?  Because I don't need to look at the polls to even know what they say.  All I have to do is look at the Trump campaign.

Incumbents usually win.  That's because they won the first time.  And you expect that the people who voted for them the first time are going to vote for them again.  So they can concentrate on attracting additional supporters.  And they spend four years doing that.

Sometimes they get a real late start doing that (as I would argue Obama did in his first term).  But still--by June of the election year, an incumbent should have his base of support nailed down so that he can pursue additional supporters.

Does Trump think he has his base of support nailed down?

Fuck no.  That stunt last night tells you all you need to know about that.  Trump is worried that he's not holding on to evangelicals, who are a critical part of his base.  Not that they're going to vote for Biden.  But he can't just win 51% or 61% or even 71% of evangelicals.  He needs to win 81%.  That's what he won in 2016, in an election in which he won by 77K votes across three states.  81%.  75% doesn't get it done.  He needs >80%.

And right now, his internals show him dropping below that.  That's why he goes out and stands there like a doofus in front of a church with a Bible.  It's to secure the evangelicals.

Everything he has done in his presidency and throughout this campaign to date has been geared to his base.  Scarborough is a murderer?  Base.  Obamagate?  Base.  Chinese virus?  Base.  It's all base plays, and that tells you he isn't comfortable that he has secured his base.

An incumbent who hasn't secured his base by June of the election year is a fucking dead man.  That's George Bush.  That's Lyndon Johnson.  If you're still trying to secure your base, you don't have the chance to reach out and expand your appeal.  And you know who's expanding his appeal by doing nothing more than sitting in his fucking basement while Donald Trump tries to keep his base onboard?

The next president of the United States, that's who.

Edited by Ghost of LL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

very highly regulated industries (e.g., oil & gas).

Forgive me for shortening your post, but I just want to highlight one point on which I really disagree.

And I would just say "lol" at the above. The state government is regulated by O&G, not the other way around.

Beyond that, I think you raised a good point regarding the state's history. I do think that once it happens, you'll see what amounts to a political tidal wave, because things are so partisan that when a Democrat finally gets over the hump it means the tide has already turned. Winning elections is a lagging indicator. I am skeptical that we'll see the open party flipping that we've seen in the past. Voters are so entrenched that a R flipping to a D would get crucified by both sides. 

As to your question regarding the GOP, I sort of expanded on that in another post, but I anticipate the majority of white moderates will swing back when Democrats actually have control and are talking about spending money on social programs and raising taxes. As for Trump, if he loses, I honestly expect him dead in a year or two. He'll have nothing left to live for. The GOP can easily powerwash that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, gmr548 said:

Forgive me for shortening your post, but I just want to highlight one point on which I really disagree.

And I would just say "lol" at the above. The state government is regulated by O&G, not the other way around.

Beyond that, I think you raised a good point regarding the state's history. I do think that once it happens, you'll see what amounts to a political tidal wave, because things are so partisan that when a Democrat finally gets over the hump it means the tide has already turned. Winning elections is a lagging indicator. I am skeptical that we'll see the open party flipping that we've seen in the past. Voters are so entrenched that a R flipping to a D would get crucified by both sides. 

As to your question regarding the GOP, I sort of expanded on that in another post, but I anticipate the majority of white moderates will swing back when Democrats actually have control and are talking about spending money on social programs and raising taxes. As for Trump, if he loses, I honestly expect him dead in a year or two. He'll have nothing left to live for. The GOP can easily powerwash that.

Well, you're . . . not wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone should make some odds for where it ends up.

Florida and Ohio have to be the front runners, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Someone should make some odds for where it ends up.

Florida and Ohio have to be the front runners, eh?

I think they were scouting spots in Nashville over the last few days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BradInATX said:

Someone should make some odds for where it ends up.

Florida and Ohio have to be the front runners, eh?

Trump National Country Club in Florida.  Duh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Trump National Country Club in Florida.  Duh.

I actually could see it as one last big money grab

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Everything he has done in his presidency and throughout this campaign to date has been geared to his base.

Everything in his entire presidency has been geared to his base.  Well, that and graft. 

It's as if he doesn't realize that he lost the popular vote and still needed a bump from a very unpopular opponent to eke out the EC.  He just keeps doubling down on his 42% over and over and over.

Edited by WBT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Pancho said:

 

MAGA

“only the best people”

It’s not my fault!
 

this is a big blow for the GOP. I hope the convention ends up in Ohio. A state they’re going to win anyway.

the GOP strategically chose North Carolina because it also has a governor race ( D governor looks good for re-election though), house races, a senate seat, and a good year in North Carolina would’ve let the states shady ass GOP state goons to rig the map for another 10 years.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about all 50 governors refuse to host the RNC convention 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NAVY said:

How about all 50 governors refuse to host the RNC convention 

Kay ivy would step up to the plate. 
 

she voted for pedofile Roy Moore after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point, hosting the GOP convention would be like inviting a war zone into your state. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Message Board User said:

So does moving the convention help or hurt Trump (and Tillis) in what is now a swing state?

i can't see how it helps.  and he needs north carolina.  bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Forgive me for shortening your post, but I just want to highlight one point on which I really disagree.

Texas has never been a two-party state.  Going back to the time of annexation, this has been a one-party state.  And certainly in the modern era, it's a one-party state.

Now, for a lot of that time, there have been two wings within that one party vying for supremacy.  In the 50's and 60's it was the liberal Yarborough wing of the Democratic Party against the conservative Connelly wing.  In the 90's and 00's, it was the business-friendly Bush win against the cultural-conservative Patrick/Paxton wing of the Republican Party.

But there's only ever one party.

And there's good reason for that.  For all of the talk about how business-friendly Texas is, much of the Texas economy runs on very highly regulated industries (e.g., oil & gas).  And it's much easier for those businesses' lobbyists to only have to work one party.  And that's what they do.  They're not Republicans because they're ideological.  They're Republicans because that's who holds power.

But everybody knows what's coming.  The lobbyists certainly do.  That's why they're now at least talking to Democrats.  And as soon as one Democrat wins in a statewide race--and it could happen this year in some downballot race--fucking look out.  Texas Association of Business, Texas Oil & Gas Association, and all the rest will start giving to Democrats.  And once that happens, it's all over.  Money's important in politics.  Votes follow the money.  And with all that money that'll flow into Democratic coffers, this thing'll flip in a hurry.

It took really just about 8 years for this state to flip from Democratic to Republican (i.e., 1978, when Bill Clements was first elected, to 1986, when Clements was elected again).*  It won't even take that long this go-around.  

 

 

* I don't think Ann Richards counts, because she only got elected because her opponent made a rape joke (how quaint that making a joke about rape was seen as disqualifying).  But you could arguably push that date of the final defeat of the Texas Democratic Party back to the mid-90's, when it lost SCOTX.

How're they going to do that, exactly?  It's not like Trump goes away.  He's the leader of a cult of personality, and he'll still have access to his twitter machine.

This is going to be the Party of Trump until Trump dies (and probably long afterwards).  

After Hoover, the GOP was in the wilderness for 20 years (and they needed a war hero from the greatest cataclysm in world history to pull them back into power).  Now imagine Hoover had a twitter machine.  And was a fucking narcissistic lunatic.  How long would the GOP have been out of power then?

Let's be real realistic about the GOP's future prospects: it has none.  It's the Whig Party.

 

 

Getting back to the topic of the thread: You know why I'm really sanguine about all these polls?  Because I don't need to look at the polls to even know what they say.  All I have to do is look at the Trump campaign.

Incumbents usually win.  That's because they won the first time.  And you expect that the people who voted for them the first time are going to vote for them again.  So they can concentrate on attracting additional supporters.  And they spend four years doing that.

Sometimes they get a real late start doing that (as I would argue Obama did in his first term).  But still--by June of the election year, an incumbent should have his base of support nailed down so that he can pursue additional supporters.

Does Trump think he has his base of support nailed down?

Fuck no.  That stunt last night tells you all you need to know about that.  Trump is worried that he's not holding on to evangelicals, who are a critical part of his base.  Not that they're going to vote for Biden.  But he can't just win 51% or 61% or even 71% of evangelicals.  He needs to win 81%.  That's what he won in 2016, in an election in which he won by 77K votes across three states.  81%.  75% doesn't get it done.  He needs >80%.

And right now, his internals show him dropping below that.  That's why he goes out and stands there like a doofus in front of a church with a Bible.  It's to secure the evangelicals.

Everything he has done in his presidency and throughout this campaign to date has been geared to his base.  Scarborough is a murderer?  Base.  Obamagate?  Base.  Chinese virus?  Base.  It's all base plays, and that tells you he isn't comfortable that he has secured his base.

An incumbent who hasn't secured his base by June of the election year is a fucking dead man.  That's George Bush.  That's Lyndon Johnson.  If you're still trying to secure your base, you don't have the chance to reach out and expand your appeal.  And you know who's expanding his appeal by doing nothing more than sitting in his fucking basement while Donald Trump tries to keep his base onboard?

The next president of the United States, that's who.

I’m not saying they will get that back, I’m saying if they are going to win they have to. 

Maybe Trump dies and the next candidate is Romneyesque, it W likeable and the Dems go hard core left wing with racial overtones. 

If you had a likeable educated white dude (or woman hahahahaha- boy the GOP is too stupid to try that yet) running against a black socialist talking about reparations, for example, that might drive the suburban white women home. Maybe. But it’s take something like that I think. 

Edited by Wulaw Horn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

I’m not saying they will get that back, I’m saying if they are going to win they have to. 

Maybe Trump dies and the next candidate is Romneyesque, it W likeable and the Dems go hard core left wing with racial overtones. 

If you had a likeable educated white dude (or woman hahahahaha- boy the GOP is too stupid to try that yet) running against a black socialist talking about reparations, for example, that might drive the suburban white women home. Maybe. But it’s take something like that I think. 

I don’t think nikki Haley is all that like able. She comes across as a bitch to lots of people.

Edited by Voldemort86

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

I don’t think nikki Haley is all that like able. She comes across as a bitch to lots of people.

Agreed. I’m thinking someone safe and boring. Like maybe the South Dakota governor, a smarter Palin, a less boring Elizabeth dole. Something like that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, henrygandorf said:

are we just pretending it's not going to be don jr or ivanka?

Goodness gracious sakes alive I sure hope not. But yeah, that would be dumb enough to be the GOP’s next go to. 

Edited by Wulaw Horn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Voldemort86 said:

Don Jr would be an unmitigated disaster. He would lose in a landslide.

Tiffany. The forgotten America, uhh, Trump!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...